- Onwards and upwards - 12 Updates
- Happy Thanksgiving to all - 2 Updates
- "C++ programming language: How it became the invisible foundation for everything, and what's next" - 3 Updates
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 25 06:41PM -0500 On 11/22/20 4:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Now .. with your off-topic religious spam, spammer. > #atheism You're a man of incredible double-standards, Leigh. You insist that your obscene and vulgar form of atheism be applied and allowed here on this public forum. You are like a bully demanding others with different views be silent while you sound off like a nattering nabob. You shout at the top of your lungs vulgarity and obscenity, and you offer no apologies for any of it. You laugh all the while you post, as if you have some right to force your vulgarity and obscenity down other people's lives. You believe with all your heart that God doesn't exist, and that atheism is the way to go in this world. That's your right, Leigh. You can believe whatever you want to, but you do not have the right to trample over other people's beliefs and their rights with your loudness, obscenity and vulgarity. If you believe in the individual, you have the duty and responsibility to extend to other people the same courtesy you would expect in return, which is to allow them to post those things which are most dear to their hearts as well. And whereas they won't post f-word this and f-word that in their content, their content has a purpose as well. I come here and teach people that sin exists and that judgment is coming and that Jesus came to save us from our sin so we won't face that judgment. I come here to post in love the way to be spared from that horrific future of damnation, of literally burning alive for all eternity in the lake of fire. I do this because I care for people. You espouse what you believe, not because you care for people, but because you care only for yourself. You're like a child crying to get attention. Shouting and grabbing and running and just being bad in every way so people will look at you. I truly pity you, Leigh. You're the most miserable man I've ever met online, and that includes the truly horrible Peter Cheung. You have a lot of growing up to do, Leigh. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 03:12AM On 25/11/2020 23:41, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > You espouse what you believe, not because you care for people, but because you care only for yourself. You're like a child crying to get attention. Shouting and grabbing and running and just being bad in every way so people will look at you. > I truly pity you, Leigh. You're the most miserable man I've ever met online, and that includes the truly horrible Peter Cheung. > You have a lot of growing up to do, Leigh. And Satan invented fossils, yes? Fuck off spammer. /Flibble -- ¬ |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 03:13AM On 25/11/2020 23:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest. You're an excellent coder, but you have too much complexity in your code in my opinion. You don't try to make things easier for lesser developers, or developers who don't want to be quite as deep as you seek to be into C++. I think it will hinder adoption of your product compared to an easier API that people will want to use without having to write their own easier wrappers for the. > Regardless, Brian's not harming anyone. You should let people live their programming lives the way they see fit. He comes here with C++ content the same as you. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's more or less desirable. > "Lighten up, Francis." And Satan invented fossils, yes? Fuck off spammer. /Flibble -- ¬ |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Nov 25 07:19PM -0800 On 11/25/2020 1:17 PM, Brian Wood wrote: > On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 12:37:29 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > Sorry, but on-line code generation is here to stay... Okay. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 03:58AM On 25/11/2020 23:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> Take your meds then stop trolling. > You push Neo-whatever consistently. You come up with a way to log content as a service and conclude it's the best thing ever created. > I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest. I think you're an idiot. You're an excellent coder, but you have too much complexity in your code in my opinion. You don't try to make things easier for lesser developers, or developers who don't want to be quite as deep as you seek to be into C++. I think it will hinder adoption of your product compared to an easier API that people will want to use without having to write their own easier wrappers for the. Have you considered the possibility that my code isn't actually that complex and that the problem is that you aren't a very good C++ coder? Satan. Fossils. /Flibble -- ¬ |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 25 11:30PM -0800 > was doing something much bigger. It wouldn't be the > last time someone got a side job by working on a > larger project. Are you saying that you are like Noah who was trying to save the world? Isn't it bit absurd self-praise even by Christian standards? > the right architecture and language 21 years ago, and > have stuck with it, some of my ideological opponents > realize there's more to the story -- "grandfathered in." Thinking that you are extremely successful is perhaps one of the reason why you are not. We engineers need to see and acknowledge the problems for to be capable to address those. So I repeat ... take the most high level issues of serialization and write down if and how your product addresses those: <https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/serialization> |
| Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Nov 26 09:40AM -0800 On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:30:58 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote: > Are you saying that you are like Noah who was trying to > save the world? Isn't it bit absurd self-praise even by > Christian standards? "It's not me, man." Bob Dylan Noah was successful in saving his family and some animals. G-d willing, my efforts will be at least that successful. > > realize there's more to the story -- "grandfathered in." > Thinking that you are extremely successful is perhaps > one of the reason why you are not. I claim to have chosen the right architecture, SaaS, and language, C++. I don't claim to have have a lot of users or to have made a lot of money from my service, etc. > most high level issues of serialization and write down > if and how your product addresses those: > <https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/serialization> If your point is my offering has weaknesses, fine, but will refer you to the above -- it's one of the only SaaS approaches to serialization. The ark was built with the future in mind. In the past you and others have provided specific comments on my software and documentation that have been helpful. That's another thing to be thankful for. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 26 10:22AM -0800 On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 10:58:22 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > > You push Neo-whatever consistently. You come up with a way to log content as a service and conclude it's the best thing ever created. > > I think you're a little manic and/or bipolar to be honest. > I think you're an idiot. It's possible. :-) > > that people will want to use without having to write their own easier wrappers > > for [them]. > Have you considered the possibility that my code isn't actually that complex and that the problem is that you aren't a very good C++ coder? I've looked at the little bits of code you've published so far and I see it as advanced C++ code that will have niche audiences. It will take someone like me to get your code, write API wrappers to make it easier to integrate before it's adopted. That's my opinion, and I could be wrong. When you wrote your service logging feature I looked at it and thought to myself, "Seriously?" I literally wrote a C version and almost published it, but I didn't want to argue with you. You have a right to code the things the way you do, and I respect that right. My personal opinion is it's too much. You're undoubtedly a far greater C++ developer than I am. I have waded in to C++ the distance I have, and I saw where it was headed and I said, "Nope. Not for me." Since that time I've been able to work on my CAlive programming language. And literally in developing that language, and in integrating the class with operator overrides, I finally began to see some of the power of C++ that I had been missing because I approached it from a different angle. I wasn't approaching it this way through C++'s obtuse syntax, but rather from the needs of the data and language as they spoke to me. Developing CAlive has given me a far greater respect for C++, but I still think the syntax required to make it work is obtuse and difficult to read. If I were in charge of the C++ steering committee, I would be working on releasing a set of UI interfaces that allow the complexities of C++ to be handled through a GUI rather than raw source code. It would be better in some cases to take source code things and present them in a different way that makes it easier to get a mental handle on things, and then to have that tool re-release them in native C++ code. You'd lose some efficiency possibly in the translation, but today's CPUs are fast enough it wouldn't matter except for all but the most niche performance-requiring applications. > Satan. Fossils. Leigh. Leigh Leigh Leigh. How can I say this? There's more to our existence than you presently know. The understanding you do not have today of why men and women like me operate as we do is found in that extended form of our existence. You limit yourself to what you currently know today by rejecting things Christians offer you. If you want to grow, receive some of it and put it to the test. Rigorously. You will find it holds up to all scrutiny, and calls out in a new voice, in a new way, that desires for you to seek deeper and learn more. You're an amazing man, Leigh. But with all of that, you're still lacking something exceedingly significant in form and function, but even more so for your future. Shields down, Leigh. Let the first bits come through and put them to the test. The "Satan. Fossils." argument is never one I've stated. It's not true. Put that one aside and listen to the real answer and put it to the test: Soft tissue is being found in fossils. It can't be millions of years old. Period. https://www.icr.org/article/soft-tissue-fossils-reveal-incriminating-trends/ Start there and see where it takes you. And you must look with a discerning examination, not a causal glance. The enemy works in casual glances. God is revealed in a pursuit of the details, the inner workings, the full truth of the matter. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 07:10PM On 26/11/2020 18:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Shields down, Leigh. Let the first bits come through and put them to the test. The "Satan. Fossils." argument is never one I've stated. It's not true. Put that one aside and listen to the real answer and put it to the test: Soft tissue is being found in fossils. It can't be millions of years old. Period. > https://www.icr.org/article/soft-tissue-fossils-reveal-incriminating-trends/ > Start there and see where it takes you. And you must look with a discerning examination, not a causal glance. The enemy works in casual glances. God is revealed in a pursuit of the details, the inner workings, the full truth of the matter. Why are you so fucking deliberately obtuse? This must be at least the fourth time I have stated this: The soft tissue found in those fossils was FOREIGN CONTAMINATION, i.e. the soft tissue was UNRELATED to the fossil itself. Are you now going to ignore this YET AGAIN? So Satan invented fossils, yes? /Flibble -- ¬ |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 26 01:33PM -0800 On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > > https://www.icr.org/article/soft-tissue-fossils-reveal-incriminating-trends/ > > Start there and see where it takes you. And you must look with a discerning examination, not a causal glance. The enemy works in casual glances. God is revealed in a pursuit of the details, the inner workings, the full truth of the matter. > Why are you so .. deliberately obtuse? Because I'm not. You hold to a false thinking, and only from within the false framework do you believe you are justified in calling me obtuse, but since it's false it's like division by zero in an equation. Everything past there is invalid. > This must be at least the fourth time I have stated this: There are 85 examples, some of whole blood cells, collagen, blood vessel segments, and other body tissues. Found by different scientists. Now that they know such things exist, they are looking for it. The tissue is from their death at the flood about 4400 years ago, not millions. It's the only way it could still be soft. > The soft tissue found in those fossils was FOREIGN CONTAMINATION, i.e. the soft tissue was UNRELATED to the fossil itself. > Are you now going to ignore this YET AGAIN? This is what I meant by not taking only a cursory glance. Investigate the details. It's not foreign contamination. Or be a coward to truth and facts. Your choice, Leigh. Cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr>: Nov 26 10:08PM Dana Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:33:29 -0800 (PST), Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> napis'o: [snip] >> This must be at least the fourth time I have stated this: > There are 85 examples, some of whole blood cells, collagen, blood vessel segments, and other body tissues. Found by different scientists. Now that they know such things exist, they are looking for it. The tissue is from their death at the flood about 4400 years ago, not millions. It's the only way it could still be soft. Are you serious??? It has nothing with C++ and should not be in this news group... but... are you serious??? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Nov 26 11:17PM On 26/11/2020 22:08, Nikolaj Lazic wrote: > Are you serious??? > It has nothing with C++ and should not be in this news group... > but... are you serious??? I'm afraid Hodgin is quite serious, and quite mad. /Flibble -- ¬ |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Nov 26 01:22PM -0600 -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Nov 26 01:22PM -0800 On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 2:22:23 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote: Happy Thanksgiving to you as well! -- Rick C. Hodgin Learn something: http://www.3alive.org |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Nov 26 09:08AM > Dunno, I started to learn C++ in 1993, gcc 2.95.2 was buggy as hell, > and that was after 1998. ;) For some reason there are certain versions of gcc that became really ubiquitous and persisted in widespread use for much, much longer than significantly newer and improved versions of the compiler became available. gcc 2.x was one of them. It persisted for an inordinate number of years in many systems, long after it had been superseded by much newer versions. Eventually it was phased out of most systems. However, for some reason gcc 4.x seems to now be the holdout that refuses to die. There are still, to this day, many Linux systems out there that have gcc 4.x as their only compiler, and for some reason refuse to upgrade. gcc 4.x has partial C++11 support, which makes it a pain to compile any program that uses the C++11 (or newer) features that it doesn't implement. At least it's not as bad as gcc 2.9, but still... |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Nov 26 06:01AM -0800 On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 11:09:14 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > gcc 4.x has partial C++11 support, which makes it a pain to compile > any program that uses the C++11 (or newer) features that it doesn't > implement. At least it's not as bad as gcc 2.9, but still... Yes, the C++11 support in it is not only partial but has several known defects in sense that valid programs crash. But perhaps there are reasons why they can not upgrade. C++17 for example was quite damaging standard and newer compilers for some reason broke C++14 features even in C++14 mode to comply with that broken standard. Also the issues can possibly be like for example too aggressive optimizations that break some sanity checks of undefined behavior and the like. |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Nov 26 08:44PM On Thu, 2020-11-26, Juha Nieminen wrote: > gcc 4.x seems to now be the holdout that refuses to die. There are > still, to this day, many Linux systems out there that have gcc 4.x > as their only compiler, and for some reason refuse to upgrade. I think the reason is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and CentOS, and all other distributions which want to be binary-compatible with it). Release 7 came in 2014 and is still supported. Release 8 came in 2019 and I guess a lot of organizations haven't migrated. And of course the longer you wait, the harder it gets. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment